Michael P. writes:
I suspect that everybody is talking past one another. Mark seemed to be
closest to the target referring to the combined and uneven nature of
colonial economies -- They have elements of all sorts of ancient
formations turned to a capitalist purpose.
I myself work in a feudal institution. You can see that in the robes we
wear on graduation day, yet it is an important gear in capitalism.
=====
The same, too, goes for a lot of other strictly noncapitalist activity that
nevertheless supports and facilitates accumulation. Because of the momentum
of pro-capitalist ideology built up over the last three decades, however,
everything strictly noncapitalist has to be justified or dressed up in
capitalist sounding lingo, ergo, "social entrepreneurship", "reinventing
government" (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992, and VP Gore's pet project), and the
profusion of marketing speak and techniques as a result of the (quasi or
full) marketisation of much of the state sector. Even the British royal
family is a victim of Thatcherism, as Maggie's levelling of everything to a
meritocracy (helped by Murdoch-stoked populism) took the rug from under the
Windsors and got everyone suddenly peeved about how they don't pay tax, how
there are so many "hangers on" (minor royals like prominent freemason Prince
Michael of Kent), how they (the royals) should themselves pay for the
repairs of Windsor Castle after fire damage. Thus Buckingham Palace, every
year for a limited period, is now open to visitors who pay for the privilege
of taking a peek, the proceeds originally going to pay for Windsor Castle
repairs, but now that a precedent has been set, everyone forgets the
original reason and the money simply keeps flowing in. Queen, PLC.
Michael K.
